With the transfer of Threet and the potential for another mediocre season next year, it's become a bit of a common theme to say "OMG, if we go 4-8 next year RR won't be the coach in 2010".
Come on guys. Seriously? Do you really think Bill Martin wants to go through another coaching search? Do you think he would only give RR 2 years with a roster that is ill-equipped for his scheme? Only 1 year with recruits that he signed? Given the attrition and injuries that have occurred over that period?
Look at the history of this administration and athletic department as far as patience with coaches. Carr was clearly winding down for at least 3 years without ever receiving so much as a single criticism from the AD. When Lloyd left (after a couple of medicore seasons and constant losses to our bitter rivals) BM said he would hire a clone of LC if he could. Tommy Amaker was given SEVEN years to try to bring the Bball program back to glory. SEVEN! And that is in a sport where it's much easier to acquire a few players that can turn your program around. Do you really think that RR, the most proven winner of any of these coaches, is only going to get 2-3 years? Though people say that M is a cut throat place to coach, I think we have one of the most forgiving and patient athletic departments of any big time program.
To those of you thinking that RR might be canned in the next year or two if we don’t show immediate improvement: Do you actually believe that he SHOULD be fired, or just that he will because of today’s “what have you done for me lately” standards? And if you are in the latter camp, do you really think that BM is so ignorant as to throw away one of the highest regarded coaches in the game before he really gets a chance to make his mark on the program? Trust me, Bill Martin knows as much about RR and his potential for huge success as we do.
Personally, I think we could go 4-8 next year and 6-6 in 2010 and RR would still be the coach is 2011, though the leash would be short at that point. Of course, I don’t think any off this will matter, because I think we’ll be challenging for the Big 10 title in 2010.
That is, if RR isn’t fired first.
The recent diary by the NYWolverine has awakened me, at least momentarily, from my winter slumber (mediated only by true Canadian past times like curling and the drinking of quality beer). Anyway, what a well written and well thought out article; problematically, the focus of apologism and rationalization is completely remarkable.
Now NYWolverine, I'm not entirely in disagreement with you in that there are any number of factors that do make Michigan game day extremely unique e.g day games, the Victors, Let's go Blue, the Band etc. (as you have well described). There are many cultural norms involved with attending any Michigan game that all of us accept and/or expect.
So, here's where I take issue:
"Where you see boring, I see Michigan culture."
You have essentially undertaken a stunningly limited and specious sociological analysis of the game attending Michigan fanbase (mostly season ticket holders) and also "midwesterners" and overgeneralized this to the Michigan fanbase. We must sit in different sections since the modesty and humility seem less evident where I am located. Where I sit there is a culture of remarkable entitlement and sometimes (like last year) completely unreasonable expectation. These are the features of the fans who leave at halftime, who don't particularly cheer for anything and are just there to, seemingly, sing the Victors 8 or 9 times per game.
As for "loyalty through thick and thin" I ask you NYWolverine, how many people in your section left in the 3rd Quarter of the Appy State 2007 game? I was proud of the fans who stayed with us and, frankly, I have not before or since heard the stadium louder than Henne's last drive of that game (obviously the outcome of that game need not be discussed further). That same game thousands of fans, multiples indeed, were booing. These same fans were yelling to fire Carr, to fire DeBord (a reasonable thought, perhaps) and yelling at 18 year olds (hello Stevie). I'm certainly not proud of that element of the Loyal Michigan Fanbase (who all left after the 3rd, anyway).
NYWolverine, you made many interesting points and spurred me to respond. Generally, this is the sign of an informative and interesting commentary, I think. On point however, I think it clear that you are rationalizing for a culture of entitlement. This culture of fan, of supporter, of donor (myself included) looked past the limited recruiting of much of the past decade, the limited innovation (both on field and in game day experience), the malaise that had settled somewhat on the program in that time and tacitly accepted it.
Unquestionably the Michigan Experience is something to enjoy and celebrate. Rationalizing entitlement and malaise is, however, completely unnecessary.
Best wishes all; back to the Canadian winter for me.
"Ok, a few short notes. I am a Texas high school football coach, so I am knowledgeable and not just some n00b. I don't post much on here because I don't have much free time (see above). Having stated thus, this is meant as my own dream class, if you will. Before you point out the obvious, I am fully aware that these kids are not all (or even close to most) going to commit to U-M and/or ever play in the Maize and Blue. That's why it is my "dream" class. Because we don't know the exact number of kids that will be in this class, I am using a 25 member "full class" as my baseline. Have at it:
Devin Gardner (QB)
Christian Green (QB)
Lache Seastrunk (RB)
Corey Brown (RB)
Austin White (RB)
Ricardo Miller (OWR)
Jeremy Jackson (OWR)
Jerald Robinson (OWR)
Brandon Ifill (SWR)
Chris Dunkley (SWR)
Robert Crisp (OL)
Seantrel Henderson (OL)
Torrian Wilson (OL)
Dior Mathis (CB)
Lo Wood (CB)
Cullen Christian (CB)
Marvin Robinson (S)
Jordan Haden (S)
William Gholston (LB)
Ishmael Thomas (LB)
Derrick Bryant (DE)
Darryl Baldwin (DE)
Jonathon Hankins (DT)
Jay Guy (DT)
Torrea Peterson (DT)
So, that makes 13 on offense, on 12 on defense. Obviously a "dream" class, but we can all dream can't we?
Feel free to comment/suggest/question any of my choices. I'm aware that there aren't many in-state names on this list, but again, this is not how I would recruit, just a pipedream of a once in a lifetime class. Like I said, it's nice to dream...
This is to be the second in a string of diaries looking for reasons to think positively about the upcoming season. For my first edition, I covered DBs.
For those of you that did not read my first entry, I'm writing these because it is depressing to think that we're going to go 3-9 or 4-8 again. This is not meant to be a 100% honest look at everything, I intentionally have my Maize and Blue glasses on; I'm looking for the positives here. Still, if you think we're going 9-3 or 10-2 I hope you're right, but that seems lofty. The aim and tone of this is set to show we can go 7-5, or maybe 8-4 if we get some bounces. Additionally, I don't have the time or patience to do extensive research, there is a lot of opinion in here, with some stats and background research, but not a lot.
For my second submission, I'll look at LBs and try to convince everyone that overall we are better off at this position than last year. I can't stress enough that "better off" is relative...
Okay, so as an intro, I feel like I was a lot more frustrated with our middle linebacker play than most, particularly in coverage. The curl zones and flats (7-15 yards, from sideline to sideline, roughly) are usually the linebackers' responsibility . It seemed like anytime an opposing team had a 3rd and 5 or 3rd and 10, these are the zones they would attack. By and large they were successful. They kept the chains moving, scored points and caused us to be the 2nd worst defense in the big 10 statistically. So, definitely plenty of room for improvement.
Obi Ezeh: Definitely our most seasoned guy. His play was hot and cold last year, showing flashes of promise, raw athleticism mixed with misreads and blown coverages. I don't really remember his recruitment, but if rivals is to be believed, he was actually recruited as a 3* running back (you'll have to select 2006 fromt he pulldown menue). So I know what you're thinking: Why do we have a 3* running back playing linebacker? Well, I don't know. What I do know is that this isn't a 'simple' transition like the transition from corner to safety is thought to be. This takes time. He was a redshirt sophmore last year. With another year of experience and learning, given the position change, significant improvements can (and probably will) still be made. I think we see a noticeable uptick in his play this year. He was our team leader in tackles last year, by far (98 vs. 76). With the extra experience, he will cut down on his blown coverages and hold down the middle.
JB Fitzgerald: True freshmen last year who saw the majority of his action on special teams. At 6'3" 230 and running a 4.7 coming into college, he's built in the mold of the old school middle linebacker. These are almost exactly the same physical attributes John Thompson had coming in. Thompson, however, was a 3*, whereas Fitzgerald was a 4*. With identical physical stats, to garner the extra star Fitzgerald must have more intuition and/or physicality. I'm hoping Barwis can chop 0.1 or 0.15 seconds off that 40 time, because to realistically be decent in coverage, he'll need that speed. However Thompson (who will always hold a special place in my heart due to the Wisconsin pick six) definitely lacked instincts. He bit on fakes and was in the wrong place at the wrong time more than he should have been. He was also slow in coverage, but I have no real reason to believe Fitzgerald will be any faster. I do, however, believe he will have better instincts and can fill Thompson's role just fine.
Others: Kenny Demens was a 4* linebacker that I believe redshirted. He was average size coming in at 6'1" 225 and decent speed running a 4.6. Haven't seen him play yet, so it's possible he ends up at OLB. If not, he may well be the most athletic of the inside linebackers. I can see him getting some duty in passing situations, and maybe push for more playing time toward the end of the season.
Mouton: This is a guy who throughout last season we said has potential. He does. He was second on the team in tackles. He was a DB coming into school, and a 4* at that. he was a redshirt sophmore this past season. Before this past season he had only seen action on special teams. The position change along with limited action explains the occasional bonehead play. I really think he's going to surprise a lot of people and is going to surpass Ezeh as our best linebacker this year. And that's not a knock against Ezeh, because as stated above I think he's going to be good.
Evans: In a word... bad. Evans just is not that skilled. He started one game, saw decent action, and still was only in on 4 tackles. He'll probably start the season with the starting job. Nothing against him (he was only a 2*, afterall), but I hope somebody starts outperforming him midway through this year. But, he is around if we need him. And, he should be improved.
Others: As stated above it is possible Kenny Demens ends up outside. He was already kind-of broken down above. Also, we have Heron. He seems destined for special teams play, but who knows. Maybe he'll get a chance if Demens or Evans doesn't pan out. There is also a couple of freshmen, but they are 3* types and probably need some time to develop. One of them (Brandon Hawthorne) is enrolled early, so maybe he'll be better than anticipated. Finally, there's always the possibility of a young, large safety-type making the move to OLB (Vlad Emilian?). Who knows? This second OLB spot is going to be interesting.
In the middle, Ezeh will be improved. Not just improved, he will be good. JB Fitzgerald is ready to play run-stuffer, but will probably have to work on his coverage.
On the outside, Mouton is making his move. He won't be an all American, but he cracks all big-ten (2nd team), and I bet he'll be in the running for most improved player on the team. The second spot on the outside is a little bit shady, but worst case scenario, we have an improved Evans.
Finally, we have Kenny Demens who could be a coverage ILB or if we're lucky, an every down OLB opposite Mouton. Anybody have any info on where the coaches are putting him?
At any rate... I see LBs as a whole being the most improved group on the defense. This is more of a function of them having so much room to improve than amazing play. Overly optimistic prediction? Yes: they will be better than average this year, even for Michigan defenses if they can figure out that last OLB spot. Not all-time great linebacking corps, but better than average.
I started liking the allusion of Steven Threet as John McClane - a competent, skilled professional thrust into a role he never could have expected with a completely different set of rules and a constant, grumpy boss of sorts on the sidelines criticizing up and down his actions. And sometimes UM fans would see him hit or throwing or hit or intercepted and it's easy to think back to watching McClane walking over broken glass... you knew it sucked but it had to happen to beat the bad guys. And I'm sure even Threet must have thought "Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherfuckers" when he lead UM over Wisconsin, especially when he awkwardly galloped 40 yards or so before hilariously covering the ball with chin, arms, elbows, knees, EVERYTHING TO AVOID FUMBLING to the amusement (and relief) of us all. But McClane wins at the end. He throws a guy off a building, gets the girl and then finds himself in some horrible, semi-similar airport situation blablabla. Imagine if John McClane had just found an open fire door, helped some heavily armed SWAT cop just out of the academy in and then walked off for a Slurpee. This metaphor sucks (Who's Carl Winslow in that season?) but you get the idea:
It was painful, he didn't expect to be there, he was there, he shot some bad guys, he got banged up pretty bad, but he didn't save the day.
And we have to be okay with that.
One thing of note to add as an addendum to Brian's post is that by his own admission Threet was isolating himself completely from anything sports media related while taking counsel from one of the most derided, albeit successful, QBs in recent UM history - John Navarre. Sometimes quarterbacks seek to play big football and are horrified to see that with it comes a duty of sorts to the public to not only succeed but to put up with criticisms. Something like the sins of the father, high profile football, particularly at a school like UM that rides their QBs harder than (insert inappropriate joke) can frustrate and dampen a young quarterback's positivity. With the fact that every major newspaper reporting on Forcier included a tidbit about how grateful he was to have the "help" and "teaching" of Sheridan and Threet, almost in a way that could be read as condescending, I would not be shocked if an heir apparent emerged in Ann Arbor the day winter semester began and, with the writing on the wall and a high profile position barely in grasp, though assuredly nowhere near in hand come 2010, Threet left.
For now I have one simple request: Tate Forcier watches all 3 Die Hards, sees how they end and, maybe, takes out a grim faced revolutionary with a stellar performance. If he wants to QB sneak in the OSU game by strapping the football to his back with wrapping tape - I'm all for it. Just finish the damn movie.* Because right now we're all watching a team limp over broken glass and it really...really sucks.
*And that he brings along Samuel L Jackson. And leaves behind the Apple computer kid.
There have been a couple board posts about the game-day experience at Michigan Stadium in the last few days, ranging from the boring nature of Michigan fans to unflattering comparisons to Michigan's louder, more raucous and fun football schools. FWIW, such has struck a chord with me, and I've decided to post my first diary (diatribe?) on MGoBlog about it. Why? It's a valid question; I probably could have found a more productive way to spend the last 20 or so minutes. At the heart of the matter I felt so compelled to point out, in my opinion, is that where some may see 'boring', they should instead see Michigan culture and something of which to be proud.
For starters, the Michigan Stadium experience has to be considered on its own terms. It’s dishonest to compare Michigan's traditions to those of others schools hoping to come out with a break-even rubric. If it was all about noise, 'white-outs', and 'jump-around', then the hierarchy of college football fandom (and 'intimidation') in the Big Ten securely has its leaders.
However, when you think about it, you'll notice that's not remotely the case. Noise is nice, loud is good, and I'm all about drunken high-fives and back-slapping when it's appropriate. But that's not what Michigan Stadium is about.
Michigan has "the Victors". Only a handful of schools have such a storied and inspired/inspiring fight song, and even less with a band talented enough to do it justice. Michigan has the "Let's Go Blue" bell, Temptation and the Hawaiian War Chant. There won't be any jock-jams, amplified synthetic noise, or corporate pageantry at Michigan Stadium. The focus will be on the field, on the Band, and on Tradition. (Having said this, I'm not against amplifying a "Let's Go Blue" bell, Michigan fanfare, or the sound of keys jangling over the PA if it will get the whole stadium clapping and cheering together. PA prompts to cheer are OK with me so long as they don't overwhelm focus off the field).
On the scoreboard, Michigan Stadium proudly lists the years for all 42 conference titles, 11 claimed national titles. Michigan has had 150 All-Americans, 3 Heisman winners, and over 870 overall wins (leading the NCAA). These are the stats that each of the 107,501 Michigan faithful exude en masse every game-day; some express the Michigan tradition with facepaint, maize shirts, blue shirts, no shirts... and for many, in no Michigan apparel at all. And I think we should be OK with that. Because to me, having a grandpa at the game who sits quietly and watches his 100th, 150th or 200th win at U-M with little to no fanfare of his own making doesn't take away from my game experience but has a hand in making it.
When the new additions are completed, Michigan Stadium will draw over 108,000 people (young, old, alums, students), and we can rest assured it will be a classy crowd: folks who've come to watch a game played the Michigan way, and chances are they'll see the other team lose.
Conversely, every time an opposing team comes to the Big House, chances are slim they're coming away with a win. Michigan's all-time wins: 872–294–36 (.740); the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Such is a level of intimidation that a bunch of idiots in white t-shirts, or dancing around to music that wasn't even cool in 1992, can only dream to achieve. What more do you really want?
As I’m trying to emphasize, the crowd and "intimidation" of Michigan Stadium can't be considered along the same terms as most any other school. It's my sense that many MGoBloggers would like the U-M experience to match game-day at Bobby-Dodd, the Swamp or Tiger Stadium. My response to this is that stadium (and collegiate) experiences in southern and certain western states where you can wear t-shirts and shorts year-round, attend night-games, and project sports-bar culture into football Saturdays are on a different plane than their mid-western counterparts. You could almost do a case-study on the geographical/sociological factors contributing to 'fandom' with these comparisons. Because I find that kind of thing interesting, I'll continue.
First: If the Michigan crowd could wear t-shirts to every game and didn't have to bundle up in fleeces and coats as the temperature drops, then you would see 108,000 people wearing the same shirt to every game-day. Same would likely create a mob-mentality, and people would be more apt to yell and cheer with singular voice and purpose. As it is at Michigan, when folks have to start donning heavier clothes, each fan is individualized in his/her own clothes and winter-gear. Individualization detracts from extroversion, and people become less apt to cheer with 'one voice'. (There are interesting psych studies on the issue of fans and mob-mentality I would link to, but you can just Google it and find some for yourself).
Second: Michigan Stadium has to some degree been forced to stick to the Saturday afternoon schedule in lieu of greater 'fandamonium' at night-games because of restricted game-day commuter options. You and I may likely agree, a party-atmosphere is at the heart of the game-day experience at all of the schools we sometimes fantasize Michigan could level up to. Unfortunately, Michigan, as home of GM and the Big Three, emphasized family cars over trains and busses. Without a viable option to commute after rounds of collegiate revelry, people have to be considerate of their commutes home. No/less spirits prior or during the game = less "spirit" in the Stadium.
As for the night-games, I've read scholarly opinions that people become more extroverted in the dark and under the light than during the day-time. I believe there's truth to this. However, Michigan Stadium has its hands tied a little bit here; I think we'd have to wait and see if a night-game experiment could still draw the same crowd and revenue as the afternoons. I would guess that the Stadium would be louder in any event.
Third: winning has a funny way of ‘stuffying up’ a crowd. Teams with winning traditions attract front-runner fans; and to a degree these people don’t do the term “fan” (short for “fanatic”) justice. As a by-product, the winning program may often realize the unfortunate result of having its biggest rival seemingly boast “better fans.” This bothers me more than anything: that Yankees fans are somehow less "fanatical" than Red Sox fans. I've heard the same problem with respect to our neighbors across the Pond; Manchester United fans vs. Liverpool.
All else being equal, I would suspect that if you thinned the Michigan Stadium crowd by eliminating the fair-weather and/or front-runner fans from game-day, and then transplanted the remaining fans into a Stadium that trapped noise instead of sending it into the ether (Autzen?), you’d have a very loud and enthusiastic group.
Last: weeks ago, someone posted a great article written by Mitch Albom discussing the state of the State of Michigan. It was a really well-written piece, irrespective of your affinity for the author. In the column, Albom discusses the "Michigan fan" in sociological terms: as humble, respectful, tradition-oriented folk. I think there's something to this, and it correlates to the type of crowd you see at Michigan Stadium.
For me, I tend to embrace these factors as a fan, because it speaks to unique qualities about what makes Michigan football "Michigan Football". Where you see boring, I see Michigan culture. As an out-of-state student (NYer), I considered the humble friendly nature of most mid-westerners with whom I engaged as an asset to the state and to the school (it's a stereotype, but well-placed in my opinion).
Where you might demand volume in decibals, I look in awe at the volume in numbers for a Stadium that demands its fans to actually drive to game-day. It may be a lot to ask of family-men and women to commit to an hour+ trek to the Stadium, have their family tailgates, and then up the excitement level for 3 hours only to get in their cars and sit in traffic on the way home. The people blogging on this site represent a faction of the fans who probably would up the ante upon entering the Stadium, but most fans at that point are just going to want to watch the game on their bums, cheering wildly after TDs and interceptions but in restrained merriment throughout.
When all is said and spoken for, you're left with a very "Michigan" (I hope not boring?) experience: an unrivaled sense of support for the home-team, loyalty through thick and thin (numbers dropped at the Stadium in 2008, but never below 106,734 [Miami-Ohio]; think about that), and above all, pride. Pride for tradition, and pride for the men on the field. I think and I hope that the players sense same. I get the impression that they do, because I believe this is what’s at the heart of being a “Michigan Man”: an athlete deserving of such unbridled, almost religious, support. I would imagine the opposition senses it, especially our mid-western rivals; such would certainly intimidate me as a player, as far as any level of noise could intimidate. It’s my new hope that when fans look out across the masses at Michigan Stadium, even the quiet ones, they’ll have a greater sense and appreciation for the thing that is the Michigan Experience, and Michigan Culture. In my opinion, it’s really something to be proud of.
If booing has become an issue at Michigan Stadium, I'm glad I didn't witness it during my run at U-M from 2000-2004; I don't remember ever hearing multiple fans boo. It's unacceptable. If it ever happened, the 'booers' would have been sorely derogated. I sincerely hope this is not becoming a recurring problem.